I finished 'Shei Shomoy' (or 'Those Days', which I guess you have already read and enjoyed!) finally-- was a rather long, but equally enjoyable,read! I rate it as one of the best novels ever written in the historical fiction genre. To start with, the blend of real-life stars of yesteryears with fictional characters was awesome, to say the least. Vidyasagar, not really the protagonist in the book, strangely left the most lasting impression in my mind. In fact, now I have placed Vidyasagar up there in my list of the greatest men to have graced India-- along with Tagore, and my idol Gandhiji. Nabinkumar, and more importantly Ganganarayan, his elder brother, come just behind Vidyasagar. I literally wept when Ganganarayan's love, Bindubaashini died, ending her miserable life-- not only did she have to stay away from the man she loved, but she was already a widow; and then she had to stand the humiliation of being someone's hired prostitute in Benaras. And still she found enough reason to continue living after having a child!
And then when Ganga returned to fulfill his incomplete duties towards the farmers whom he once ruled, I couldn't help but idolise the man for his extreme sense of responsibility. It was somewhat good that Ganga learnt to love again-- his marriage to Kusumkumari was blissful.While Kusumkumari found a new lease of life, after her hellish marriage with a madman, Ganga found a reason to continue living. And given the useless and dreamy romantic that I am, I was of course quite happy for the two. It was also touching to note how Ganga remembers Bindu, saying that while he once again found life and love, she had to die a sad woman.
Nabinkumar (who is, I guess, based on Kaliprasanna Singha) is an altogether different story. The extremely whimsical, and yet superbly talented and kind-hearted, Nabin is torn between two different worlds. He leaves the world in a turmoil-- with lots of unfinished duties, dreams and ambitions. Nabin, is in my eyes, the best of Bengali multi-millionaires we've heard of. Not only is he extremely sensible and humane, he is always in search of something good and noble. And while all the others babus are busy engaging in wine and women, Nabin writes extensively, and tries to rid the society of evils. A rather nice thing about Nabin is that he likes people who speak frankly, and not sycophants and flatterers. One of the more subtle points in the whole book is the love triangle of Nabin, Ganga and Kusum. Nabin seems to love his wife, Sarojini, and yet he has very deep emotions for Kusumkumari. Nabin avoids talking much to Kusum, because he doesn't want to affect his brother's and his wife's lives. The more intriguing question is that: does Kusum love Nabin? Certainly seems so. After Nabin's death, Kusum is silently mourning. And yet Kusum actually still loves her husband Ganga. Isn't love a strange, and yet very beautiful, thing? Seems so to me!
Harish Mukherjee and Chandranath (the son of the prostitute 'Heera Bulbul') leave their footprints on my mind too. Harish is a tireless fighter, waging wars against oppression (and ultimately dying, leaving the whole thinking world in sorrow), while Chandranath has to fight society all his life long. Chandranath, an extremely intelligent and sensitive boy, is thrown out of school, and later hurt badly, only because he is the son of a prostitute. This makes me question: are we to blame the prostitutes for the sex trade? Don't the two-faced babus themselves go to the sex-workers, and later treat the same people as scum? Isn't the world a hypocrite's paradise? Determined to fight on, Chandranath returns as a gentleman, to eradicate blind-belief in sadhus, yogis and other crooks. It's quite funny to see how Chandranath turns the 'faithful' crowd of devotees against the very babas they worship. Ironically, Chandranath still has to fight society-- babus burn his house down and hurt him very badly, because he saves a prostitute from the hungry and violent claws of the rich and the famous. It's a cruel decision of fate by which Chandranath and Nabin never get to become good friends-- something that has saddened me quite a lot. The other figures whom I shall distinctly and fondly remember are Raimohan (I believe each society needs a master whistle-blower like him), 'Young Bengal', and of course, Michael Madhusudhan Dutta.
The hate-figures finally! Barring the usual plethora of disgusting babus and orthodox Hindus, I hated Bidhushekhar the most. Strange, isn't it? Let me explain. Bidhu never looked at Bimbabati with respect-- all he had for her was lust. What was most disgusting was the way Bidhu forgave his lust all by himself-- all the while saying that Ganga was wrong to desire his daughter, Bindu. That is damned hypocrisy! Also worth mention is the attitude with which Bidhu treated the Singhas-- he kept repeating in his mind that he could destroy the Singhas if he wished too, and the only reason why he didn't do so was his love for his late friend Ramkamal Singha. I believe no true friend ever thinks such about a "dear friend's" family! Also in the list of hate-figures is Thaakomoni, the widowed woman who went onto become a servant, and then the boss of them, in the Singha mansion. One can say that fate had forced her to become the way she was-- I say that if we don't allow fate to take control of us, we can always be free.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Film review: Black Friday
Image: The Interrogation.
Anurag Kashyap's docu-style enactment of the '93 Bombay Blasts case, the biggest criminal case in Indian legal history, is earth-shattering (pun intended!) to be quite frank. The film starts with Gandhiji's immortal words: "An eye for an eye wil make the Earth blind." (and hey, it ends with the same) And what follows is some ten minutes or so of pure gore, bloodspill, death, pandemonium of titanic proportions. The very look on a scorched man's face says more than a thousand words of mine can ever express about the impact that those blasts had. What is quite ironical about the blasts is that even though a petty criminal had revealed some crucial details of the blasts before they occured, the police were too confident to believe those: dismissing that man's words as mere foolery.
Kashyap superbly shows each and every minute detail of the planning and execution of the blasts. Kashyap follows the police as it tracks each and every criminal involved in the blasts. And like a house of cards, the whole hierarchy of underworld gangsters starts falling down. The ruthless, tactful and efficient style of interrogation adopted by the Mumbai police often borders on bloody torture. To get the correct facts out, the police leave no stone unturned: even going as far as publicly humiliating the kindred, women included, of the suspects. Kay Kay Menon plays the role of a touch cop with elan: adding a tangible reality to the role, which makes it all the more credible. When Kay Kay, himself quite disturbed due to the the inhuman methods his subordinates and himself have to resort, thrusts his head into a bucket full of water; it strikes me as one of the most sublime moments in the whole movie (of course, the blast scenes are the most mind-bogglingly filmed!). In the second half, the film proceeds mostly through the narrative of one Badshah Khan, himself a suspect-turned-police-witness: Badshah reveals how he gets to meet the wily Tiger, who convinces him that killing hindus (or what is put under the misnomer of 'Jihad') is the only way one can seek vengeance for the horrible Babri Masjid issue, and the following religious riots in Mumbai. Badhshah then narrates how the whole plan of planting bombs is laid out and effectively executed. What is most remarkable is the way the flight of Badshah from the police is filmed. The hapless guy has to travel from one town to another, one city to another, living in filthy conditions quite often; promised that he'll be taken to Dubai soon, and then left to die in the hands of the police by Tiger Memon and the higher ranks in the Mumbai Underworld. Incidentally, it's the heaped-up tension and frustation that spurs Badshah to turn into a police-witness. There's a certain flashback towards the end of the film which shows how Tiger Memon, his associates and agents of ISI plan to execute a grand show of 'Jihad' to terrify Hindu hearts, and seek revenge for the injustice lent out to the Muslims-- which is absolutely fabulously shot.
The dialogue in the film is very commendable. There's a certain line where Kay Kay answers a group of reporters on the allegation that the police are violating human rights when brutally interrogating suspects: (I am presenting just a mere translation of what Kay Kay says in Hindi) "When we interrogate cruel murderers cruelly, you enquire about violation of human rights. Why don't you ask us about violation of human rights when hundreds of innocent people die in the blasts? The guys in lockup we are interrogating aren't innocent people, they are hardcore terrorists; and we'd be quite happy to hand over the interrogation to all of you! Unless you humiliate these guys and their family-members, you can't get a word out of their mouths!"
In a conversation with Badhshah, Kay Kay says: "You, who kills in the name of religion, are a bastard. And so is the hindu who kills you and your people in the name of religion." I can't agree more. No religion ever promotes or justifies unjust warfare, and people who kill in the name of 'religion' are the biggest hypocrites in the world. "You think that your Tiger Memon is a Jihaadi. Why is he sitting in Dubai with his family now, while you people are rotting here in our jails?" Kay Kay continues, "You think that Allah was with you all the while, when you took revenge for the damage inflicted on you. Allah always blesses the one who seeks truth, and if we had not been seekers of the just truth, you would'nt be standing before us here!"
The film however scores the most in technique, camera, direction and acting: every little detail in the film is as credible as real (even the guy who plays Dawood Ibrahim). Just watch the film to understand why I speak so highly of it: it's something you should never miss.
Kashyap superbly shows each and every minute detail of the planning and execution of the blasts. Kashyap follows the police as it tracks each and every criminal involved in the blasts. And like a house of cards, the whole hierarchy of underworld gangsters starts falling down. The ruthless, tactful and efficient style of interrogation adopted by the Mumbai police often borders on bloody torture. To get the correct facts out, the police leave no stone unturned: even going as far as publicly humiliating the kindred, women included, of the suspects. Kay Kay Menon plays the role of a touch cop with elan: adding a tangible reality to the role, which makes it all the more credible. When Kay Kay, himself quite disturbed due to the the inhuman methods his subordinates and himself have to resort, thrusts his head into a bucket full of water; it strikes me as one of the most sublime moments in the whole movie (of course, the blast scenes are the most mind-bogglingly filmed!). In the second half, the film proceeds mostly through the narrative of one Badshah Khan, himself a suspect-turned-police-witness: Badshah reveals how he gets to meet the wily Tiger, who convinces him that killing hindus (or what is put under the misnomer of 'Jihad') is the only way one can seek vengeance for the horrible Babri Masjid issue, and the following religious riots in Mumbai. Badhshah then narrates how the whole plan of planting bombs is laid out and effectively executed. What is most remarkable is the way the flight of Badshah from the police is filmed. The hapless guy has to travel from one town to another, one city to another, living in filthy conditions quite often; promised that he'll be taken to Dubai soon, and then left to die in the hands of the police by Tiger Memon and the higher ranks in the Mumbai Underworld. Incidentally, it's the heaped-up tension and frustation that spurs Badshah to turn into a police-witness. There's a certain flashback towards the end of the film which shows how Tiger Memon, his associates and agents of ISI plan to execute a grand show of 'Jihad' to terrify Hindu hearts, and seek revenge for the injustice lent out to the Muslims-- which is absolutely fabulously shot.
The dialogue in the film is very commendable. There's a certain line where Kay Kay answers a group of reporters on the allegation that the police are violating human rights when brutally interrogating suspects: (I am presenting just a mere translation of what Kay Kay says in Hindi) "When we interrogate cruel murderers cruelly, you enquire about violation of human rights. Why don't you ask us about violation of human rights when hundreds of innocent people die in the blasts? The guys in lockup we are interrogating aren't innocent people, they are hardcore terrorists; and we'd be quite happy to hand over the interrogation to all of you! Unless you humiliate these guys and their family-members, you can't get a word out of their mouths!"
In a conversation with Badhshah, Kay Kay says: "You, who kills in the name of religion, are a bastard. And so is the hindu who kills you and your people in the name of religion." I can't agree more. No religion ever promotes or justifies unjust warfare, and people who kill in the name of 'religion' are the biggest hypocrites in the world. "You think that your Tiger Memon is a Jihaadi. Why is he sitting in Dubai with his family now, while you people are rotting here in our jails?" Kay Kay continues, "You think that Allah was with you all the while, when you took revenge for the damage inflicted on you. Allah always blesses the one who seeks truth, and if we had not been seekers of the just truth, you would'nt be standing before us here!"
The film however scores the most in technique, camera, direction and acting: every little detail in the film is as credible as real (even the guy who plays Dawood Ibrahim). Just watch the film to understand why I speak so highly of it: it's something you should never miss.
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Commentary: Traffic Signal.
I recently watched the Hindi movie Traffic Signal some days back. Though the ending was a bit rushed up, it was a nice film to watch-- moreso because I am an admirer of Madhur Bhandarkar's school of filmmaking. Bhandarkar's films are always based on the harsh truths of life, and quite often about the double-standards of the rich and famous of the world. They are fresh in content each time-- though with similar themes-- and are made in a very straightforward, and often stomach-churning, manner. I really loved the performances of Konkona Sen Sharma (who's one of my most favourite actresses), Sudhir Mishra (he was a knockout in the form of the don Baba Sheikh!), Ranvir Shorey (portraying with precision the heart-broken drug-addicted conman who sees his lover, a prostitute, forced to sleep with other men every night) and most of the supporting cast. The film made me wonder again-- who's to blame for the beggars who are forced to con people at the traffic signals (and elsewhere) to earn money enough to feed themselves? Aren't we the real criminals? Haven't we as a nation unnecessarily increased its population to the point where per capita income is so meagre that even the poorest American gets a good laugh after having a look at the figures? Haven't we reduced this country to a producer of the largest contingent of beggars, handicapped people, BPO and IT employees ourselves? Haven't we taken the shortest road too often, thus making our country the victim of our own laziness, corruption and lack of determination?
One of the most understated subplots, which I rate as exceptionally brilliant, involved a poor beggar boy who wants to make his dark skin fair. The innocent boy believes that some fancy skin-fairness cream may help him do so-- and therefore he spent some hard-earned money to buy a tube of that. Only to realise after much and repeated use that he won't become fair! The poor boy vents his anger on a large advertisement, of the cream's brand, by the roadside. While on the surface, this may seem to be a somewhat amusing portrayal of an innocent boy's foolishness, a deeper read suggests issues more serious: poor people blindly chasing dreams they can't achieve. That's human nature-- something Tagore immortalised in his superb short story The Postmaster. We dream, often fail in achieving our dreams, only to chase new dreams in vain again. It's the unending cycle of human wants and desires-- which Buddha rightly notes as being the source of maximum unrest in the world. Read over again-- it's the poor boy's dream to become fair that causes him a heartbreak.(On a lighter note: some of the girls may kindly learn that no "fairness-cream" can turn a black complexion into something fairer. That's medically impossible! It's insane on the part of the companies to project some fancy fairness-cream as a source of inspiration to young minds-- who become singing or dancing superstars in 30 days after using the cream! That's really lame. :P)
If I had to pick my favourite actor from the lot in the movie, I'd choose Ranvir Shorey (followed by Konkona Sen Sharma). Shorey excels in the role of a conman-- addicted to drugs, dejected and rejected my normal society, and in love with a prostitute who sleeps with numerous other men but can't afford to comfort Ranvir. It's painful to see Ranvir die of excessive drug overdose, and a totally broken heart. I wonder why such a superb actor gets to play only small roles in films! The next budding director should go and catch Ranvir, who, by the way, makes a superb comedy pair with Vinay Pathak. Shorey and Pathak can make you laugh really well-- and it isn't the kind of crude comedy which makes Johnny Lever irritating after a while. I love both of 'em. Konkona does really well as Ranvir's lover, the prostitute, who herself is very sad to see Ranvir die. Konkona, along with Rani Mukherjee, gets my nod as the two best actresses (wonder why even actresses are called 'actors' nowadays!) in Bollywood at the moment-- of course notwithstanding such classic veterans as Jaya Bachchan and Shabana Azmi. And oh, I was forgetting Mr. Attitude, Sudhir Mishra. He plays the cold-blooded Godfather-style mafia with aplomb.
P.S.: I deliberately chose a film like Traffic Signal instead of some classic, because it's relatively easy to write about classics. So many renowned critics write about them anyway! I chose this relatively "non-classic" film, which is more than watchable by any standards, only because it allowed me to write something original without copying stuff from other reviews. :P
One of the most understated subplots, which I rate as exceptionally brilliant, involved a poor beggar boy who wants to make his dark skin fair. The innocent boy believes that some fancy skin-fairness cream may help him do so-- and therefore he spent some hard-earned money to buy a tube of that. Only to realise after much and repeated use that he won't become fair! The poor boy vents his anger on a large advertisement, of the cream's brand, by the roadside. While on the surface, this may seem to be a somewhat amusing portrayal of an innocent boy's foolishness, a deeper read suggests issues more serious: poor people blindly chasing dreams they can't achieve. That's human nature-- something Tagore immortalised in his superb short story The Postmaster. We dream, often fail in achieving our dreams, only to chase new dreams in vain again. It's the unending cycle of human wants and desires-- which Buddha rightly notes as being the source of maximum unrest in the world. Read over again-- it's the poor boy's dream to become fair that causes him a heartbreak.(On a lighter note: some of the girls may kindly learn that no "fairness-cream" can turn a black complexion into something fairer. That's medically impossible! It's insane on the part of the companies to project some fancy fairness-cream as a source of inspiration to young minds-- who become singing or dancing superstars in 30 days after using the cream! That's really lame. :P)
If I had to pick my favourite actor from the lot in the movie, I'd choose Ranvir Shorey (followed by Konkona Sen Sharma). Shorey excels in the role of a conman-- addicted to drugs, dejected and rejected my normal society, and in love with a prostitute who sleeps with numerous other men but can't afford to comfort Ranvir. It's painful to see Ranvir die of excessive drug overdose, and a totally broken heart. I wonder why such a superb actor gets to play only small roles in films! The next budding director should go and catch Ranvir, who, by the way, makes a superb comedy pair with Vinay Pathak. Shorey and Pathak can make you laugh really well-- and it isn't the kind of crude comedy which makes Johnny Lever irritating after a while. I love both of 'em. Konkona does really well as Ranvir's lover, the prostitute, who herself is very sad to see Ranvir die. Konkona, along with Rani Mukherjee, gets my nod as the two best actresses (wonder why even actresses are called 'actors' nowadays!) in Bollywood at the moment-- of course notwithstanding such classic veterans as Jaya Bachchan and Shabana Azmi. And oh, I was forgetting Mr. Attitude, Sudhir Mishra. He plays the cold-blooded Godfather-style mafia with aplomb.
P.S.: I deliberately chose a film like Traffic Signal instead of some classic, because it's relatively easy to write about classics. So many renowned critics write about them anyway! I chose this relatively "non-classic" film, which is more than watchable by any standards, only because it allowed me to write something original without copying stuff from other reviews. :P
A big thank you...!
Dear readers,
I am both pleasantly surprised and hugely grateful to all of you for the positive feedback I have received over the past few days. I can't express in words how happy it makes me when people say that they love to read whatever I write. It's been all the more happier to know that people whom I respect and love very much like reading this blog. I won't take names, because some of them don't like being spoken about on public forums such as this. No matter-- a big THANK YOU to all of you.
And hey Mr. 'slangy' Anonymous, I never invited you to visit my blog. Why do you waste your time writing stuff that doesn't disturb me anymore. I used to get upset earlier, but now I've accepted your folly as a part and parcel of this journey.
P.S.: Actually, I broke a promise, in not posting for a long time, that I had made to myself when I created this blog-- to post at least once in every two weeks.
I am both pleasantly surprised and hugely grateful to all of you for the positive feedback I have received over the past few days. I can't express in words how happy it makes me when people say that they love to read whatever I write. It's been all the more happier to know that people whom I respect and love very much like reading this blog. I won't take names, because some of them don't like being spoken about on public forums such as this. No matter-- a big THANK YOU to all of you.
And hey Mr. 'slangy' Anonymous, I never invited you to visit my blog. Why do you waste your time writing stuff that doesn't disturb me anymore. I used to get upset earlier, but now I've accepted your folly as a part and parcel of this journey.
P.S.: Actually, I broke a promise, in not posting for a long time, that I had made to myself when I created this blog-- to post at least once in every two weeks.
Saturday, 25 August 2007
How nice of my acquaintances and friends!
I've been posting for about some one and a half months on a variety of topics, and yet for the past three weeks no one worthwhile has cared to look up (or even if they did so!) and comment. No one worthwhile, I repeat. But lots of anonymous chaps showing their skills in using the choicest of Bengali profanities. And not to forget some owner of a site who has petitioned to the UN (that's what I found out after I googled for the site's name) saying that Gandhiji was a hypocrite and a shameless racist, and that the UN's plans to celebrate World Peace day on October 2 should be cancelled. And also another anonymous chap giving me a link to 'earn free money'.
No one to say anything on gandhism, Harry Potter book 7, human love, SMS text (excluding the previous participants of course)-- at least no one in the past three weeks. Is that proof of a suspicion that I have held for long, in the recesses of my mind-- that I am a boring/utterly incapable/irrelevant/foolish/a worthless know-it-all writer. At least assure me that. I'll stop wasting my and your precious time here at my blog.
On the contrary, if you think that I have some worth-- care to comment when you visit my blog. Kindly read the posts once and let me know your opinions. This is an earnest request.
No one to say anything on gandhism, Harry Potter book 7, human love, SMS text (excluding the previous participants of course)-- at least no one in the past three weeks. Is that proof of a suspicion that I have held for long, in the recesses of my mind-- that I am a boring/utterly incapable/irrelevant/foolish/a worthless know-it-all writer. At least assure me that. I'll stop wasting my and your precious time here at my blog.
On the contrary, if you think that I have some worth-- care to comment when you visit my blog. Kindly read the posts once and let me know your opinions. This is an earnest request.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
My folly....
This time I'll make it really short. This is something rather personal which I would like to share with those who care to look up at my blog. I made a mistake today. I, the eternally emotional philosophical idealist, forgot his own words of wisdom for four long hours. For these four hours, I tried to figure out how much a particular person (I don't deem it right to disclose the name!) loves me. The parameter on which I was trying to evaluate love was something really foolish: need! I tried to figure out how much the person in question (named XYZ henceforth) 'needs' me. And then suddenly, I realised how foolish I had been for these four hours.
How could I make the foolishness of evaluating love (which is in itself quite a tough job!) in terms of the need XYZ felt for me? Love is something that is beautiful. Something that transcends all earthly needs of food, shelter, money, need, want etc. And anyway, how much help am I really of, that someone should feel the need to love me? I forgot the imagery that had captivated me: "Set the bird free. If it comes back to you, it was always yours. If it doesn't, it never was!" Deep inside I was trying to entertain the idea that XYZ is bound to 'love' (in the distorted sense of the word) and need me. Now, I feel really sorry for having chided XYZ in my own mind (thankfully I had confined that extreme irrational anger to myself!). I shouldn't have done so. But in a way, I am thankful that I committed this folly. This was a lesson I had to realise. I thank God for giving me the wisdom that relationships require to be understood. This post is a heartfelt sorry to XYZ ; and a big thanks to my conscience-- once again you showed me the right way.
How could I make the foolishness of evaluating love (which is in itself quite a tough job!) in terms of the need XYZ felt for me? Love is something that is beautiful. Something that transcends all earthly needs of food, shelter, money, need, want etc. And anyway, how much help am I really of, that someone should feel the need to love me? I forgot the imagery that had captivated me: "Set the bird free. If it comes back to you, it was always yours. If it doesn't, it never was!" Deep inside I was trying to entertain the idea that XYZ is bound to 'love' (in the distorted sense of the word) and need me. Now, I feel really sorry for having chided XYZ in my own mind (thankfully I had confined that extreme irrational anger to myself!). I shouldn't have done so. But in a way, I am thankful that I committed this folly. This was a lesson I had to realise. I thank God for giving me the wisdom that relationships require to be understood. This post is a heartfelt sorry to XYZ ; and a big thanks to my conscience-- once again you showed me the right way.
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
The relevance of Gandhism
After my first post on the Mahatma and his way of life, I think it will be quite relevant to discuss and elaborate WHY on earth shall we try to listen to the words of Gandhi? Why is the message of the frail, fragile and bald-headed peace-loving man remembered even today by those who praise him? Why, after all, considering that Gandhi lived in the first half of the previous century?
The basic principles on which Gandhism stands are non-violence, satyagraha and universal love. Nothing new with that, right? Even the historians have blindly repeated Gandhi's words so often. So what new and relevant message does those words convey? But if you picture yourself in the Europe, or for that matter even India, of the early 1900's, you'll get some picture of the situation. Picture the world around-- the race for arms, the misguiding political calls for 'patriotism', 'development', 'world political power', rivers of blood flowing, corpses littered around, often unsympathetic government, state-sponsored violence, unemployment coupled with total economic decay (sudden bouts of inflation and depression in the market), ethnic-cleansing, bereaved lovers and relatives of dead, or worse still, brutally injured and amputated soldiers-- and then it dawns upon you that the world Gandhi lived was uglier than the most insane of human minds can imagine. All this nauseating ugliness and more, the biggest threat being chemical, biological and nuclear warfare. What the world required at that point of time was a messiah of peace. One who rightly noted that 'an eye for an eye shall make the world blind'. One who said that 'the difference between what we do, and what we can do, can solve most problems on earth'. One who recognised the horrors of blind industrialisation and political powerplay. And that was Gandhi. Surprising though it may seem, when Gandhi visited London for the second Round Table Conference, the mill-workers of Lancashire (whose bread Gandhi had indirectly denied, by promoting his khadi and boycott movements) gave him the warmest of receptions. A certain reputed newspaper noted that 'Gandhi maybe a politician among saints, but he is no lesser a saint among politicians'. Though Gandhi left London a hugely disappointed man, for the Conference had failed to reach a definite conclusion, Gandhi had met a great number of talented thinkers from George Bernard Shaw, Charlie Chaplin, Gandhi's own erstwhile jailer General Smuts, Albert Einstein etc. And all of them agreed with one thing-- the world needed the healing power of love more than the destructive power of the atomic bomb. But alas, the West failed to truly understand Gandhi's message of universal love. Gandhi failed to stop World War II.
But, we were talking about Gandhi's relevance, weren't we? His message's relevance in current times. The only change in today's scene is that in place of a Germany, we have an USA today. And in place of a Hitler, we have Bush! Things haven't changed much from that perspective. Practically, the world is still ruled by a half-literate power-thirsty despot, who wages wars against countries at his own will. Who thinks it's perfectly fine to take the side which seems most favourable for his own political good, and change that if situations change. A person, to whom the only 'good thing done' which may be attributed is that he doesn't run concentration camps to cleanse the Earth of 'social scum'. And seeing even our own India's and Pakistans's eagerness to make atom bombs and deadly missiles, how much has changed since those dreadful 1930's and 1940's? So decide for yourself how much relevant Gandhi's message of non-violence, satyagraha and universal love is. When technology is given more importance than human welfare, what more can be said? In today's world, where a cellphone is more important to a youngster than the amount of social work he does, or even think of doing, what else can be said about Gandhi's insistence than technology shouldn't be allowed to prosper if it threats to extuingish the lamp of humanity? When the state forces poor farmers to give up their farmlands to make way for companies making small-budget cars, at the cost of grain, how much do you think is one being rational and humane?
Gandhi was one who lived by the cliche: "Simple Living, High Thinking." He was one of the first people who stressed than sanitation in rural India would stop most of the diseases from spreading; the one who stressed that spitting, defecating and peeing by the roadside isn't only ill-mannered but unhygienic too, considering that a huge number of Indians walk barefoot. Gandhi moved from village to village, addressing its people, informing them about the benefits of sanitation, hygiene, meditation and communal unity. He dug out toilets, showed the villagefolk how to make water filters from simple gravel, sand and pitchers. And above all, he was the one who advocated how necessary and good it is to believe in oneself, and ultimately God. His regular prayer meetings were attended by people of all religions, caste, creed and colour. Gandhi's simple dictum that all ministers of free India should live simple, walk around without bodyguards, converse regularly and closely with the people of the country was not an old man's sudden whim. Even before half a century had passed since the day Gandhi uttered those words, India was, and is still, ruled by corrupt politicians and ministers. One question keeps popping up, was Gandhi wrong in suggesting all he did? It certainly doesn't seem so.
I certainly don't say that non-violence is the universal answer. Gandhi himself maintained that it isn't. At times, violence has to be used. Non-violence doesn't work with heartless and totally unsympathetic people. It doesn't work when someone is trying to rape your mother or sister, or kill you. Then you certainly have to resort to violence. But I believe that violence should always be the last resort. At least, violence is a lot better than cowardice. Gandhi once remarked-- "I'd happily have a country full of violent people, than a country full of cowards." But keeping in mind, that most people are cowards-- those who rag juniors at college when in groups, but flee when they are alone against a group of violent hoodlums-- am I not saying too much? And neither is non-cooperation always effective, or even justified. Tagore often reminded Gandhi that though he didn't fear Gandhi misusing non-cooperation, most others would reduce such a powerful and meaningful political weapon to the level of sillyness. Tagore couldn't have been more right. Being an admirer of both Gandhi and Tagore, I understand that Gandhi's methods, though effective when used by Gandhi, at times were unsuitable for lesser individuals to truly understand and implement.
And above all, Gandhi showed that love is the ultimate power a man can possess. Love is the panacea for the world's ugliness. It was Gandhi's belief in love that made the 'Miracle of Calcutta' possible: a Calcutta, reputed as the most violent city on earth at the time and which had recently seen the Ganga turning red with Hindu and Muslim blood on August 16, 1946. In less than a week, Gandhi arrived in Calcutta, a city seething with rage at the news of Bengal's partition, and catalysed it's metamorphosis to a haven of communal peace. That is an achievement in itself-- because it was here that Gandhi was treated with stones by the people upon his arrival for the first time in his whole political career. An achievement, considering that a taskforce of 55,ooo soldiers failed to restore peace in Punjab.
I'll be happy to entertain intelligent questions from eager readers and thinkers. But I stress that all posts should be in full, correct and polite English. That's not too much I hope! And please mr. anonymous (I hope you get me!), if my posts pose you so much inconvenience, please don't read them!
The basic principles on which Gandhism stands are non-violence, satyagraha and universal love. Nothing new with that, right? Even the historians have blindly repeated Gandhi's words so often. So what new and relevant message does those words convey? But if you picture yourself in the Europe, or for that matter even India, of the early 1900's, you'll get some picture of the situation. Picture the world around-- the race for arms, the misguiding political calls for 'patriotism', 'development', 'world political power', rivers of blood flowing, corpses littered around, often unsympathetic government, state-sponsored violence, unemployment coupled with total economic decay (sudden bouts of inflation and depression in the market), ethnic-cleansing, bereaved lovers and relatives of dead, or worse still, brutally injured and amputated soldiers-- and then it dawns upon you that the world Gandhi lived was uglier than the most insane of human minds can imagine. All this nauseating ugliness and more, the biggest threat being chemical, biological and nuclear warfare. What the world required at that point of time was a messiah of peace. One who rightly noted that 'an eye for an eye shall make the world blind'. One who said that 'the difference between what we do, and what we can do, can solve most problems on earth'. One who recognised the horrors of blind industrialisation and political powerplay. And that was Gandhi. Surprising though it may seem, when Gandhi visited London for the second Round Table Conference, the mill-workers of Lancashire (whose bread Gandhi had indirectly denied, by promoting his khadi and boycott movements) gave him the warmest of receptions. A certain reputed newspaper noted that 'Gandhi maybe a politician among saints, but he is no lesser a saint among politicians'. Though Gandhi left London a hugely disappointed man, for the Conference had failed to reach a definite conclusion, Gandhi had met a great number of talented thinkers from George Bernard Shaw, Charlie Chaplin, Gandhi's own erstwhile jailer General Smuts, Albert Einstein etc. And all of them agreed with one thing-- the world needed the healing power of love more than the destructive power of the atomic bomb. But alas, the West failed to truly understand Gandhi's message of universal love. Gandhi failed to stop World War II.
But, we were talking about Gandhi's relevance, weren't we? His message's relevance in current times. The only change in today's scene is that in place of a Germany, we have an USA today. And in place of a Hitler, we have Bush! Things haven't changed much from that perspective. Practically, the world is still ruled by a half-literate power-thirsty despot, who wages wars against countries at his own will. Who thinks it's perfectly fine to take the side which seems most favourable for his own political good, and change that if situations change. A person, to whom the only 'good thing done' which may be attributed is that he doesn't run concentration camps to cleanse the Earth of 'social scum'. And seeing even our own India's and Pakistans's eagerness to make atom bombs and deadly missiles, how much has changed since those dreadful 1930's and 1940's? So decide for yourself how much relevant Gandhi's message of non-violence, satyagraha and universal love is. When technology is given more importance than human welfare, what more can be said? In today's world, where a cellphone is more important to a youngster than the amount of social work he does, or even think of doing, what else can be said about Gandhi's insistence than technology shouldn't be allowed to prosper if it threats to extuingish the lamp of humanity? When the state forces poor farmers to give up their farmlands to make way for companies making small-budget cars, at the cost of grain, how much do you think is one being rational and humane?
Gandhi was one who lived by the cliche: "Simple Living, High Thinking." He was one of the first people who stressed than sanitation in rural India would stop most of the diseases from spreading; the one who stressed that spitting, defecating and peeing by the roadside isn't only ill-mannered but unhygienic too, considering that a huge number of Indians walk barefoot. Gandhi moved from village to village, addressing its people, informing them about the benefits of sanitation, hygiene, meditation and communal unity. He dug out toilets, showed the villagefolk how to make water filters from simple gravel, sand and pitchers. And above all, he was the one who advocated how necessary and good it is to believe in oneself, and ultimately God. His regular prayer meetings were attended by people of all religions, caste, creed and colour. Gandhi's simple dictum that all ministers of free India should live simple, walk around without bodyguards, converse regularly and closely with the people of the country was not an old man's sudden whim. Even before half a century had passed since the day Gandhi uttered those words, India was, and is still, ruled by corrupt politicians and ministers. One question keeps popping up, was Gandhi wrong in suggesting all he did? It certainly doesn't seem so.
I certainly don't say that non-violence is the universal answer. Gandhi himself maintained that it isn't. At times, violence has to be used. Non-violence doesn't work with heartless and totally unsympathetic people. It doesn't work when someone is trying to rape your mother or sister, or kill you. Then you certainly have to resort to violence. But I believe that violence should always be the last resort. At least, violence is a lot better than cowardice. Gandhi once remarked-- "I'd happily have a country full of violent people, than a country full of cowards." But keeping in mind, that most people are cowards-- those who rag juniors at college when in groups, but flee when they are alone against a group of violent hoodlums-- am I not saying too much? And neither is non-cooperation always effective, or even justified. Tagore often reminded Gandhi that though he didn't fear Gandhi misusing non-cooperation, most others would reduce such a powerful and meaningful political weapon to the level of sillyness. Tagore couldn't have been more right. Being an admirer of both Gandhi and Tagore, I understand that Gandhi's methods, though effective when used by Gandhi, at times were unsuitable for lesser individuals to truly understand and implement.
And above all, Gandhi showed that love is the ultimate power a man can possess. Love is the panacea for the world's ugliness. It was Gandhi's belief in love that made the 'Miracle of Calcutta' possible: a Calcutta, reputed as the most violent city on earth at the time and which had recently seen the Ganga turning red with Hindu and Muslim blood on August 16, 1946. In less than a week, Gandhi arrived in Calcutta, a city seething with rage at the news of Bengal's partition, and catalysed it's metamorphosis to a haven of communal peace. That is an achievement in itself-- because it was here that Gandhi was treated with stones by the people upon his arrival for the first time in his whole political career. An achievement, considering that a taskforce of 55,ooo soldiers failed to restore peace in Punjab.
I'll be happy to entertain intelligent questions from eager readers and thinkers. But I stress that all posts should be in full, correct and polite English. That's not too much I hope! And please mr. anonymous (I hope you get me!), if my posts pose you so much inconvenience, please don't read them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)